Catholic Archbishop Nienstedt recently asserted in a letter to state officials that the state budget is a moral document and higher state spending is a moral good. At a time when society needs the Church's teaching more than ever, unfortunately in this case the Archbishop's reasoning creates more confusion than clarity and sheds more heat than light.

Many of us who share the Archbishop's faith-based heart for the poor disagree with his conclusion that more state spending is the answer. In secular terms we would call it a confusion of means versus ends. In Catholic terms it is a confusion of prudential versus moral judgments.

The heat stems from well-intentioned people implying that other well-intentioned people must support higher government spending to be morally fit before God. Policy debates devolve to accusations about moral intent, including this year that some are not willing to pay their fair share.

For policy makers, attaching a moral imperative to state spending hinders serious and sincere questions about the efficacy of state programs. In the name of compassion, we dare not ask whether this spending might in fact be creating an economic incentive for the very behaviors and circumstances we are trying to mitigate.

More broadly, a moral compunction emerges from the idea that the truly compassionate person should always be willing to pay more taxes. The result? Families and faith-based institutions, having the greatest ability to truly change people's lives, slowly shift the mission to serve each other to the state.

Advertisement

True community and freely given person-to-person compassion are edged out, not built up. And eventually a divisive mutual resentment grows between those receiving benefits and those forced to pay for them.

As a Christian and person of faith, I fully appreciate the proper and important role of government. But I also believe that true compassion is sustainable - support that works today, tomorrow, and for future generations. And true compassion is often hard - requiring both opportunity and accountability which are the practical necessities for human dignity.

As a public official, simply raising taxes and spending falls far short of the structural reform and rebalancing our system needs right now. The state's unsustainable status quo will not adequately deliver on any needs let alone mercy to our most vulnerable - that is fiscal reality.

Also real, and misunderstood, is the impact of ever-growing taxation. Once the financial incentive to avoid taxes on the next dollar of income becomes greater than the incentive to earn it, we propagate attitudes that only serve to hurt our economy and all of us who rely on it.

All of these prudential policy judgments tell me that only when our budget is responsible and sustainable for everyone can we call our work a success.

This budget situation is certainly a challenge. But it is also ripe with opportunity-- to make positive change and create a stronger Minnesota.

So in the debate, let's avoid directly equating certain state spending levels with morality. The harm such a perspective brings to the process, and ultimately to the institutions that hold everything together, is all too real.

Keith Downey, R-Edina, is a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives.